[2014] KEHC 411 (KLR)

[2014] KEHC 411 (KLR)

The court found that the application did not fall within the scope of rectification as contemplated by Section 74 of the Law of Succession Act. Instead, the applicant was seeking a substantive review and redistribution of the estate, which is not permissible under the rectification provisions. The applicant had...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2014] KEHC 411 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Susan Muchiru Githui; Respondent: Francis Kamwenji Githui; Respondent: Jessee Ngari Githui
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nyeri
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Separation Cause 524 of 1999
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Summons for Rectification of Grant
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Rectification of Grant, Distribution of Estate, Law of Succession Act, Confirmation of Grant
Source Language
en
Family and Children Civil Procedure Rectification of Grant Distribution of Estate Law of Succession Act Confirmation of Grant

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Susan Muchiru Githui

Applicant

Francis Kamwenji Githui

Respondent

Jessee Ngari Githui

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Succession Cause / Ruling on Summons for Rectification of Grant

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to rectification of the grant under Section 74 of the Law of Succession Act.
  2. 2 Whether the application seeks rectification or a substantive review and redistribution of the estate.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant has provided sufficient grounds for altering the confirmed grant.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the application did not fall within the scope of rectification as contemplated by Section 74 of the Law of Succession Act. Instead, the applicant was seeking a substantive review and redistribution of the estate, which is not permissible under the rectification provisions. The applicant had previously confirmed the grant and participated in the distribution of the estate. No suitable reason was provided to warrant setting aside or reviewing the confirmed grant. The court concluded that the application lacked merit and was not made in good faith, as it sought to alter the distribution already agreed upon and confirmed.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application dated 6th November 2013 is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.